John Arway interview on the Susky

[vcregular]

Krancer's reply to the Arway letter.

 

[Fishidiot]

To be perfectly frank....I'm ambivalent about this. Kudos to Arway for taking an aggressive approach regarding the smallie problem. However, listing the river as impaired when it has generally gotten cleaner over the years and the scientific reason for the smallie decline has not been established.....is of questionable merit in my view.

Krancer's reply makes perfect sense.

 

[afishinado]

The following compunds were found in fish tissue samples. (way above the norm according to the report):


Chemical Compounds in Tissue
MeMthoxytriclosanethoxytriclosanTriclosanTriclosan
Personal Care Products
PentabromotoluenePentabromotoluene
BDE183BDE183
BDE154BDE154
BDE153BDE153
BDE138BDE138
BDE100BDE100
PCB170PCB170
DechloraneDechlorane PlusPlusPCB206PCB206PCB151PCB151
FireMasterFire MasterPCB194PCB 194PCB149PCB149
BDE99BDE99PCB187PCB187PCB146PCB146
BDE85BDE85PCB183PCB183PCB138PCB138
BDE71BDE71PCB180PCB180PCB118PCB118
BDE66BDE66PCB177PCB177PCB110PCB110
BDE47BDE47PCB174PCB174PCB101PCB101
Flame RetardantsPCBs
MarkBurkhardtandSteveZaugg–DenverUSGSLabDanaKolpin-ToxicSubstanceHydrologyChemical Compounds in Tissue
MeMthoxytriclosanethoxytriclosanTriclosanTriclosan
Personal Care Products
PentabromotoluenePentabromotoluene
BDE183BDE183
BDE154BDE154
BDE153BDE153
BDE138BDE138
BDE100BDE100
PCB170PCB170
DechloraneDechlorane PlusPlusPCB206PCB206PCB151PCB151
FireMasterFire MasterPCB194PCB 194PCB149PCB149
BDE99BDE99PCB187PCB187PCB146PCB146
BDE85BDE85PCB183PCB183PCB138PCB138
BDE71BDE71PCB180PCB180PCB118PCB118
BDE66BDE66PCB177PCB177PCB110PCB110
BDE47BDE47PCB174PCB174PCB101PCB101
Flame RetardantsPCBs

Chemical Compounds in Tissue
OxOyfluorfenxyfluorfen
DCPA(DacthalDCPA(Dacthal))OxychlorostyreneOxychlorostyrene
DesulfnylfipronilDesulfnylfipronilp,pp,p--DDT,DDD,DDEDDT, DDD, DDE
FipronilsulfideFipronilsulfideBenfluralinBenfluralinciscis andtransand trans--ChlordaneChlordane
FipronilFipronilTrifluralinTrifluralinChlordane,Chlordane, OxychlordaneOxychlordane
ChlorpyrifosChlorpyrifosDieldrinDieldrinDimethyltetrachlorophthalateDimethyltetrachlorophthalate
CyhalothrinCyhalothrinTetradifonTetradifonPentachloronitrobenzenePentachloronitrobenzene
TefluthrinTefluthrinciscis--NonachlorNonachlorPentachloroanisolePentachloroanisole
CyfluthrinCyfluthrintranstrans--NonachlorNonachlorHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene
PesticidesOrganochlorine Pesticides
Chemical Compounds in Tissue
OxOyfluorfenxyfluorfen
DCPA(DacthalDCPA(Dacthal))OxychlorostyreneOxychlorostyrene
DesulfnylfipronilDesulfnylfipronilp,pp,p--DDT,DDD,DDEDDT, DDD, DDE
FipronilsulfideFipronilsulfideBenfluralinBenfluralinciscis andtransand trans--ChlordaneChlordane
FipronilFipronilTrifluralinTrifluralinChlordane,Chlordane, OxychlordaneOxychlordane
ChlorpyrifosChlorpyrifosDieldrinDieldrinDimethyltetrachlorophthalateDimethyltetrachlorophthalate
CyhalothrinCyhalothrinTetradifonTetradifonPentachloronitrobenzenePentachloronitrobenzene
TefluthrinTefluthrinciscis--NonachlorNonachlorPentachloroanisolePentachloroanisole
CyfluthrinCyfluthrintranstrans--NonachlorNonachlorHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene
PesticidesOrganochlorine Pesticides

Link to source: http://www.srbc.net/programs/docs/wqac101310smb.PDF

A smoking [d]gun[/d] howitzer, IMO.

Edit: In the study, a comparison was made with the Shenandoah River (which was declared impaired) and the Susky testing showed greater quantities of many compounds and chemicals included ones that cause intersexing of fish, which prevents spawning. Guess the folks around the DC area have more "pull" (or push) than folks in PA.

 

[iceyguides]

IMO: Krancer's reply sounds like he wants to justify doing nothing. It seems we've mistakenly come to the conclusion that since we don't fully understand the problem, there is no problem. Sometimes "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The river is sick. Hope you like catfish.

 

[Fishidiot]

Call me unconvinced.

Blazer's research is groundbreaking and worthwhile....but it should be pointed out that a solid link to these conditions and the SMB decline in the lower Susky has not been established. Yes, the river is impaired with this junk....but so are many other rivers that have not seen bass decline.

Many (most I think) of these pollutants have not been studied for prevalence in the past. Traditional pollutants, such as phosphorous, nitrogen etc have generally been declining in the Susky over the last couple decades. These new pollutants have not been studied/documented in the past nor do sewage treatment plants (to my knowledge) have methods to mitigate them. They have been linked to effluent (largely human birth control) and are thought to be connected to intersex conditions. Prozac is also a showing up. Intersex bass conditions were first documented in the Potomac several years ago. The bass are doing extremely well in the Potomac despite these conditions with record YOY in 05 and 07. Frankly, birth control in the US isn't new. Just because these are (newly) documented in bass tissue doesn't mean it's the cause of the Susky bass decline. For all we know, SMBs have had this junk in their tissue for decades (Prozac and other compounds are obviously newer). These pollutants aren't unique to the lower Susky....and neither is columnaris lesions.
Why, then, have we lost bass in the lower Susky and not elswhere where these common conditions/pollutants exist?


I'm not saying I'm against declaring the Susky impaired....It's merely my contention that more research is needed. There's something about the lower river that is problematic and doesn't exist in other rivers or the North Branch and West Branch.

 

[afishinado]

I certainly have none of the answers, but I have read that the treatment plants along the River are antiquated and/or overtaxed by new development.

Common sense tells me that if everyone from the headwaters and downstream throws in 10 lbs of poop and chemicals, those 10lbs turn into tons and tons by the time they reach the lower end.

The Potomac River IS improving. They improved the treatments plants along the River and are continuing to do so.

Improvement in Potomac River water quality was documented in a study published Tuesday by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and England's National Oceanography Centre.

"Improvements to plant communities living at the bottom of the river have occurred nearly in lock step with decreases in nutrients and sediment in the water and incremental reductions in nitrogen effluent entering the river from the wastewater treatment plant for the Washington, DC area," said USGS scientist Dr. Nancy Rybicki.

Healthy beds of underwater plants increase oxygen and maintain clear water with low total suspended sediment in the river, the scientists have found.

"Upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant have benefited submerged aquatic vegetation habitats 50 miles downstream. These findings underscore the benefits of nutrient reduction efforts on a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay," said Rybicki, who has been conducting research on the Potomac River since 1979.

Link to source: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2010/2010-09-10-094.html

Here is a link to some of the things being done in our neighboring State of Maryland to clean up their Rivers.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/wastewater

What the frac are we doing in PA [d]for[/d] to our rivers and streams?!?

 

[Fishidiot]

Afish,
It will be interesting to see if future SMB necropsy in the Potomac watershed shows continued prevalence of the new endocrine contaminants (I haven't read your full link yet to see if effluent controls have been put in place for such stuff). My guess would be that - even though sewage treatment has improved and the river is demonstrably cleaner of traditional pollutants......that the intersex bass conditions will continue.
Regardless of the good news of a cleaner Potomac.....it never lost its bass like the lower Susky.

For those of you who think Krancer is stonewalling....I would say in his defense that the use of macro-invertebrate surveys to establish water quality is a proven and standardized methodology used by DEP and other environmental organizations to assess impairment. It was just such a macro survey, for example, that was used by DEP to establish the impairment of Big Spring that resulted in the closure of the hatchery and subsequent recovery of that fishery.
In the case of the lower Susky, macros are healthy. You can wade out today into any shallow stretch around Harrisburg and pull up some rocks: you'll find tons of caddis, mayflies, helgrammites, and absolute swarms of crayfish. The white fly hatch remains strong. Although not "macros" - baitfish are numerous too with schools of shiners, fallfish, madtoms etc all over.

By the traditional standards used by DEP.....this is a clean river.

 

[Fishidiot]

New development:

Just recently, a group of 22 retired DEP scientists and water quality professionals have taken up this issue and are now on board with listing the Susky as impaired. This is highly interesting and may sway Krancer. This group of retired DEP members contend that DEP does not need to identify exactly what is causing the bass decline. but that the documentation of that decline (which is well established) is sufficient evidence for DEP to proceed with the listing and initiate new policies/management to improve the river.

Again, as I mentioned above, I have mixed feelings about such a declaration and sympathize with DEPs reluctance to declare impairment. If they haven't identified the problem - how can they go about fixing it?
On the other hand, perhaps a declaration will expedite research and lead to some new discoveries and improvements (we can only hope).
The fact that so many knowledgeable former insiders are in favor of this - along with continued pressure from the PFBC - could prove decisive.

 

[vcregular]

Zero sway. Here is his reply. And he comes off as rather condescending imo.

http://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2012/06/dep-secretary-defends-decision-not-to.html

 

[Fishidiot]

vcregular wrote:
Zero sway.

Yeah, looks like you're right (thanks for the link - good stuff).

Krancer is sticking to his guns - no surprise. I didn't find his reply condescending myself although I detect some exasperation at former agency employees calling out DEP in public(?). Krancer's response showed a strong grasp of detail and seems fair to me.
To his credit, he clearly recognizes there's a problem with SMBs and supports further study of the river and it's issues.